Diarization of Telephone Conversations Using Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on work on speaker diarization of telephone conversations which was begun at the Robust Speaker Recognition Workshop held at Johns Hopkins University in 2008. Three diarization systems were developed and experiments were conducted using the summed-channel telephone data from the 2008 NIST speaker recognition evaluation. The systems are a Baseline agglomerative clustering system, a Streaming system which uses speaker factors for speaker change point detection and traditional methods for speaker clustering, and a Variational Bayes system designed to exploit a large number of speaker factors as in state of the art speaker recognition systems. The Variational Bayes system proved to be the most effective, achieving a diarization error rate of 1.0% on the summed-channel data. This represents an 85% reduction in errors compared with the Baseline agglomerative clustering system. An interesting aspect of the Variational Bayes approach is that it implicitly performs speaker clustering in a way which avoids making premature hard decisions. This type of soft speaker clustering can be incorporated into other diarization systems (although causality has to be sacrificed in the case of the Streaming system). With this modification, the Baseline system achieved a diarization error rate of 3.5% (a 50% reduction in errors).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".